On 27/4/07 08:08, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Don't you need a rmb() here then? The CPU could speculate reads
>> (more occurrences)
>>
>
> Is rmb() sufficient? It will stop a speculative read on the pending
> flag, but will it make sure the write has happened by then? Ie, is it a
> write-vs-read barrier, or just a read-vs-read?
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt suggests not.
The barrier() is sufficient. We are racing against Xen checking
evtchn_upcall_mask *on the local cpu*. Which means an interrupt has to
occur, which squashes speculative stuff.
Yeah, I know, it needs a better comment. :-)
-- Keir
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
